Our study contributes to the debate on the quality of open access publishing by comparing research on Green HRM in different journals and by examining the impact of predatory publishing on quality research. We chose Green HRM as an appropriate case, because it is a rapidly growing area of research, but the number of journal publications is still limited and thus we could cover the whole literature in the field over a 30-year period (1993-2022). We examine characteristics of different publication outlets. Our data suggests, not only that papers published in quality journals have an impact on papers published in questionable (so-called ‘predatory’) journals, but also the other way around. Through citations, questionable research contributes to the impact of quality publications. Even more importantly, we found that articles published in ranked journals legitimize pseudo-knowledge by referencing to questionable literature. Although our sample consists of one specific area of research, we suggest that our findings can be generalised to other areas of HRM and management research. We discuss practical implications to different stakeholders and end with a plea and recommendations for more awareness and responsibility in the publication process.
